Menu

One graph that ends the climate change debate

Page 6 of 9

Premise: So, let’s go back to our poster child for climate change propaganda. Ockham’s razor, a fundamental principle of analysis states that the likely best possible solution to a problem contains the least presumptions. Selecting a single dataset as definitive from among over a dozen available is conveniently presumptuous. Not indicating that fossil fuels consumption only significantly rose beginning in 1950, and instead implying that mankind is responsible for all warming since 1890 is also conveniently presumptuous. Averaging down its data to an annual one-hundredth of a degree of precision to hide its range of oscillation (spectrum) is also conveniently presumptuous. Producing an average line by averaging the already averaged annual data points is additionally conveniently presumptuous. Not illustrating that the “hottest year” temperature is way below the minimum projection used to legitimize anthropogenic global warming theory in the first place is also very conveniently presumptuous. And then adding an arbitrary trend line to these multiple averagings is even more conveniently presumptuous.

Whereas, a more honest and much less presumptuous presentation of global temperature data would be by offering a graph of 13 datasets in aggregate, with their full monthly spectrums, along with range lines and a median line added for illustration purposes only (which do not manipulate or hide the implications of the data, as do averages). It would be based on the benchmark year defined by the climate-change-establishment, using their datasets, and including a median illustration of the failed projection offered in 1986 that wrongly established anthropogenic global warming theory supposedly as legitimate.

Notice: The median illustration of Dr. Hansen’s projection in the above graph would have proven his 1986 assertions correct and delegitimized the year 1990 as a consolidation range benchmark. This projection, however, in reality did not happen, and therefore 1990 is indeed a consolidation range benchmark.

Riddle: Which of the above two graphs do you think best satisfies Ockham’s razor by containing the least presumptions?

Conundrum: You can see for yourself that it is preposterously presumptuous to suggest that a trend can be accurately determined based on single annual numbers with the precision of one-hundredth of a degree when the monthly variations (the spectrum) of aggregate measurements is generally greater than a full degree (100 times the presumed precision!), all while none of these measurements include their margin of error, which would additionally widen the spectrum by tenths more.

Conclusion: The adherent-establishment is attempting to trick you into seeing a steadily rising global temperature by manipulating single datasets to produce the scary graphs that they desire. Their claim is not based on empirical evidence and is not science – it is propaganda. 2014 was not the hottest year on record, and there has been NO anthropogenic global warming (as defined by the adherent-establishment) for the past 25 years inclusive – or ever.

Punch Line: Using a single annual number with the precision of one-hundredth of a degree is like defining white noise as varying single tones and then calling it Mozart.